The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

The latest from Germany

The reports that Bernie Ecclestone is offering $33 million to settle the criminal trial in Germany are just plain weird. There have long been rumours that Ecclestone was looking for a financial settlement, but it has always looked to be rather unlikely. A fine is OK for a parking offence, but only a politician could argue against the absurd irony of letting a briber off with a fine. That’s not to say that Ecclestone is admitting guilt here, he just wants the trial to be over. He does not want a guilty verdict because he knows that this would mean that his F1 toys will be taken away from him. The only way he can keep the train set is to be declared “not guilty”, but even then there are no guarantees when dealing with private equity people who work only on risk analysis. They have taken a huge risk already getting things this far and one cannot help but feel that at some point they will pull out their glistening knives and solve the problem in a different fashion. Mr E is approaching his 84th birthday and has no successor. There are plenty of folk who think that getting him out of the way would instantly add to the value of the business. What has kept CVC Capital Partners supporting him so far is the fear of what might happen if he is not there… This is why they are in a hurry to sell now. It may have been a wildly successful investment, but the suits in the shadows don’t like being dragged into court and forced to admit that they don’t really know their management has been getting up to. It’s bad for their image.

Whatever the case, one cannot help but conclude that wanting a pay-off has bad implications. Why would an innocent man pay to stop a trial that should logically find that he has been telling the truth? Lawyers are not stupid men and women, although in general terms they will always kowtow to the man with the cheque book. The customer is always right, and so on….

So what is the angle here?

One likes to believe that justice does not work like this, otherwise what is the point of a justice system? Every crook and shyster would claim that there was a precedent and bribery would have to become acceptable behaviour in Germany, either that or the decision would have to be overturned and the judge fustigated for having allowed it to happen. He would have no career ahead of him.

If the case against Ecclestone is not good enough then the prosecutors may lose and be embarrassed, so perhaps this pay-off is being floated as a better option for them. Perhaps it is, but it would still be a lousy decision for justice in Germany. But then, if Ecclestone is confident of winning why would he not push for the victory? That is what you would do…

There are some who see a fine as being the pragmatic answer to a guilty verdict. The Germans obviously don’t want to stick an 83-year-old man in jail for a white collar crime, but just because one is old should not be an excuse if you have committed a crime. Let them all off and we will have a crime wave of cat burglar euro-pensioners… justifying their actions because pensions are shrinking. Some would argue that if a man can handle a wife roughly half his age, he can also handle some porridge [British slang for time in prison].

I cannot claim to know what is going on in Germany. What I do know is that none of it is good for the sport and in a corporate world this would not happen. And this is why one has to eventually reach the conclusion that a corporate structure is best for the future of F1. Transparency is good. More sensible financial structures are essential and a new age can then begin.

It is, in truth, a pattern that has been repeated over and over. The trailblazers go in and create a colony, the entrepreneurs give it dynamic growth and then the administrators are required. There is no room after that for the buccaneers. A calmer future beckons.

If other sports can make corporate management work, there is no reason why F1 cannot. It merely requires some owners who see the value in not always going for the fast buck, people who want profits but are willing to invest to build a stronger business. It needs competitors who are reasonable and fair and a management that is enlightened and open to new ideas.

Share this:

Related

108 Responses

I have a question Joe; who used to govern F1 in the early days e.g. the 1960s. Just curious…I was too young to really know, but formulae changed etc in those days too – it would be interesting to make a comparison study.

As far as rules and technical issues, it was the FIA’s CSI (Commission Sportive International – International Sporting Commission), headed by members of major clubs, working voluntarily. When the CSI, inquiring into the legality of the Brabham Fan Car, held its press conference late one afternoon, the Belgian chairman apologised for looking bleary and unshaven “but I was up all night negotiating the terms for a new nuclear power station with the Belgian government,” he explained.

Way back, F1 technical and sporting regulations were determined by the CSI of the FIA. They set the rules for events but did not run them. Race organisers paid the prize and start money to attendees. At some races where places were limited, the organisers juggled the starting grid, which annoyed everyone who did not have a guaranteed place. Plus the Indy 500 was part of the World Championship.

Way back further, AIACR, which dates from 1904, turned into the FIA.
—
Prior (or alongside) to Bernie Ecclestone, the man who thought he should be running F1 was Jean-Marie Balestre of the CSI. As web search terms, Balestre and Concorde Agreement throw up some useful results.

Wikipedia writes: “In the late 1970s, photographs began to circulate of Balestre wearing a German SS uniform and he took unsuccessful legal action to suppress their publication.” This is nonsense because Balestre used French privacy laws to block publication of the photos while he was alive.

Balestre claimed that he acted as an insider for the French resistance movement. One has to consider how a resistance movement member would have viewed photos of himself in SS uniform; quite a coup, I would have thought.

If F1 was on the brink of doing the right thing then Joe would have been nominated to the Flavio Committee! Now that I would pay to see the meetings! Pay per view anyone? You may not be able to stand he stands for Joe, just would love to see you debate the man!

So it is likely, that the Germans with a weak or loosing case want a deal to get something from this and can incentivize it because they can delay a verdict for as long as possible (this thing has dragged on forever anyway what is another year to think about the verdict). Look at the downside for them the bad press of dragging an innocent old man through the courts for what? They failed to fact check the case? Not much upside there!

Bernie needs a deal because it is unlikely he can afford for it to drag on any longer even IF he eventually wins. IE the suits at CVC are getting restless and kick him out just because it has all gone on to long, not on the verdict? Worth 25m just to shut them up probably and stay in play for the sale of the company. IE a deal is a clean end to both sides in the court case, but a nightmare for CVC. One suspects they thought that the court would get rid of a thorn, now they see the thorn may stay firmly embedded they need it removed….. Hence the motive for them that it has all gone on to long you have to go!

What’s then the difference of the banks defrauding the public Libor/ Mortgages etc and paying a fine instead if going to court and serving time, Aren’t these corporations run under proper administration. Aren’t the decisions these banks made taken by individuals why aren’t they in Jail no they are allowed to use the shareholders earnings to pay for their misdeeds.

We as individuals might not agree and justice should be served but when it comes to things like this I can see a deal being done. The Govts involved naively point to the fact that they are doing their job, I’d rather forgo the billions in fines and see the CEOs in jail instead.

BE might not be guilty he might have skated close to the edge, I know my lawyers advice might possibly be to cough up a little now rather than a lot latter.

With costs sometimes it’s better to fold than take a stand and I personally don’t think BE really gives a rats what people think about him anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, but I think it’s a little naive to think the corporate management is the best thing. It’s been proven time and again that these corporations are happy to bend the rules till they get caught at it.

I personally like the idea of the F1 teams buying the rights and controlling the sport, it can be done they just need to stop thinking me and think us.

But such issues are so front and center now, they affect companies who sponsor the things we enjoy. I appreciate it’s not healthy to drift into pure therein discourse, but you pride yourself, position yourself, on integrating these concerns with your view of the sport. If the debate is worthless, that’s another matter. It’s very easy to drive these discussions onto the intellectual rocks, in a few sweeping statements. Meanwhile, F1 has it all: private equity driven team investment (for what logical reason, that still evades me), big bank name sponsorship, playboys and tax havens, pseudo intergovernmental organizations, politically naïve “emerging market” plays for venues… we got it all! Pity, that there seems no easy way to turn any of that into positive attention, attracting real fans…

Banks and other large corporates inc utilities have somehow managed to turn deception and theft into the rather more ‘palatable’ mis-selling, for which they proffer insincere apologies, pay the fines and then repeat the same. Alex Brummer’s book on the banking crisis outlines that fines in this industry are not seen as punishments, but a cost of business.

The UK government is musing on legislation to send bankers found guity of misconduct to jail. I am middle aged and think it unlikely that I will ever see a banker sent to jail for this in my lifetime. Rich and influential people rarely go to jail, particularly for white collar crime.

In respect to the Banks/Libor etc – they paid fines after they were investigated and found liable. They knew they would lose in court and so paid the fine. In this case Berni has yet to be found liable/Guilty if he is then a very very large fine would be justified or a spell in the slammer or both. either way its a very sad situation for the sport.

It really depends where the offence is committed. In the States these offences fall under the jurisdiction of Federal law and can carry jail teems of up to 100 years in a supermarket prison. That doesn’t even include the ignomy of the “per walk” which do more damage to your share rice than the sentence.
My suspicion is that since Ecclestone has upped the offer to settle he must be aware a conviction is a serious possibility. One hopes his barristers are not just taking his money but advising him wisely.
I’m left wondering why the FIA continue to fiddle while the sport is dragged through the mud. The consequences for a guilty verdict will also have implication s for their oversight of the sport.

There’s specific laws and regulations in each country that govern the behavior of banks and other institutions. In some instances, the Responsible Managers or Directors of a bank could be jailed for passing knowingly false information to the regulatory. However, under the corporations acts of these countries, infractions of the Act or more often, carve outs like class orders, result in financial penalties for the institution.

You would need to consult criminal statutes and banking statutes for each jurisdiction because I could only give specific examples of Australia.

Not necessarily. Settling the case on the basis of a payment is highly unlikely to result in a not guilty verdict. It may result in charges being withdrawn, but legally that is not at all the same thing. It would be more like a “not proven” verdict. Therefore as it would not have been proved that BE did not bribe GG (excuse the double negative) there would be no basis for quoshing GG’s conviction.

I have seen a fair point made elsewhere that the only reason this case has been brought is because Bayern LB is owned by the State of Bavaria which, unlike shareholders in private banks, is in the fortunate position of being also able to instigate criminal proceedings. However, the State of Bavaria probably doesn’t really give a damn about the other parties who arguably lost out when F1 was sold to CVC. It does however give a damn about LB losing out on a potentially higher sale price if the deal had gone elsewhere. As such, if BE is prepared to make reparations to LB for its alleged lost profits (without any admission or finding of guilt) that is potentially a much better result for the State of Bavaria than putting BE in prison.

I understand the logic of your second paragraph, but I still find it terribly depressing – because what it says is that there is one law for the very rich, and another for everyone else. If the alleged bribe had been made with Bernie’s last 40 million, he’d be facing jail time. But since he still has no trouble coming up with another 33 million, he’s a free man. It’s hard to think of that as a ‘justice’ system.

Joe isn’t Bernie being tried by the same Judge that tried Gerhard? I believe in two other trials both judges respectively found that this transaction was a bribe but their opinions were not dispositive since they were not the triers of fact in this case. What weight, if any, do you think this judge should give to the other judges rulings in deciding Bernie’s guilt or innocence?

the banker who took the bribe was guilty of corruption in public office i think, ie the public office bit made it serious, in the public interest.

in the same way they are prosecuting mr e for bribing a public official. part of his defence is that he didnt know the bank was state owned, meaning he wasnt attempting to bribe a public official and is therefore innocent of the specific charge. might work.

Lots to consider here. For one thing, plenty of White Collar bankers & businessmen/women get away with heinous financial crimes in UK Courts, often the case ” collapses ” after the Public has spent £20million or so, and the criminal walks away without a stain on his/her character…except we all know that they did it….as long as they got away with it and made loads of cash from it, they don’t care what we think….in the Bernie case, I feel he will not be interested what the rest of us think…and if you are a Billionaire, why should you be bothered I guess….?
It will be interesting to see what happens. If BCE is free to carry on, then despite him saying that he would not want to buy F1 back, I reckon that is precisely what he has planned!
As to CVC, it would seem that the rules by which they are allowed to invest, also require them to release their investment in any business, at a set time period…this would be why Bernie has been rubbishing F1, as this will reduce the price that CVC would get from anyone, and ultimately, with Bernie there, CVC might not find anyone who actually wants an involvement, which would make for a good deal for Bernie, who could then sell it on again to another outfit!
The Dictator model has worked for many years in F1, and made the teams a lot of money, it might still work if some more sensible person, like say Roger Penske, was in sole charge. It doesn’t work with Bernie in control now, and that is easy to see.
As for Joe, brave to stick your head out of the trenches mate, as once Bernard has kicked the dust of Germany from his loafers, he might see fit to have a recognition problem with your F1 Pass mate!!

its unlikely that its Bernie who has put this deal together, yes he has a lot to lose, but as you say its cvc who will lose more in the long run. This sort of reminds me of the Jackson trial of the early 90’s, it was said he paid them off, but it was the insurance company because if the tour was cancelled then they would of lost a lot more money than then the said $25m paid to get out of it. Its unlikely we will know the details of the donation being offered, it may look like its Bernie, but I doubt it.

Gerhard Gribkowsky is sitting in a jail for accepting a bribe, so logically Bernie (who has admitted paying him) must be guilty of paying this bribe. Bernie has done a lot of good for F1 but the time for him to leave has long since passed. His refusal to acknowledge the value/importance of the internet and social media is just one example of how out of touch he is with the modern world.

The law doesn’t, thankfully, work that way. Evidence for each crime is considered in context. In sufficient evidence exists for Gribkowsky, it does not mean sufficient evidence exists to the standard of proof set by the Court, for Bernie.

It seems as though,either way,Mr.E loses all credibility.Surely he’s going to be neither guilty or innocent,which is cobblers really. F1, with the help of the permanent tan Italian must surely be going the same way. What really gets my goat,is that the people in charge(!) don’t give a bugger.

“A long time ago came a man on a track
Walking thirty miles with a sack on his back
And he put down his load where he thought it was the best
He made a home in the wilderness
He built a cabin and a winter store
And he ploughed up the ground by the cold lake shore
And the other travellers came walking down the track
And they never went further, and they never went back
Then came the churches, then came the schools
Then came the lawyers, and then came the rules
Then came the trains and the trucks with their loads
And the dirty old track was the telegraph road
Then came the mines, then came the ore
Then there was the hard times, then there was a war…”

Well, Ecclestone ploughed up the ground in the wilderness; many other travellers came along and collected truckloads of ore. Perhaps it’s time for the war…

I don’t think I was questioning his achievement, but Bernie certainly didn’t create Formula One, no matter how much he and his minions would like people to slap ™ next to every occurrence. In this instance I think ‘miner’ suits Bernie’s role precisely. He didn’t make anything, he didn’t invent anything; he didn’t plough virgin soil. He took something that already existed and exploited it for his benefit and as a consequence he made a lot of people rich.

That is exactly what miners do. They don’t put the ore in the ground, but they do extract it to sell. They want the best quality ore they can get, and they develop new technologies to find it, dig it up, and prepare it for sale to the markets as efficiently as possible. Bernie took an existing race series, tarted it up, made it more financially efficient, and improved the way it has been sold to the markets. Miners enrich the folks working in the mine (mine wages are generally much higher than other rural workers), the folks providing plant and services to the mine, and folks who buy and sell the product further down the road.

Bernie’s influence has increased the amount of money pumped out by F1 many times over, and so employment and wages have increased as well. Do engineers working for McLaren earn more or less than Petrofac, do you suppose? Even in your profession there are many more people employed than there were 20-30 years ago. I don’t imagine that the likes of Crombac and Jenkinson had to fight too hard for elbow room in whatever passed for a press centre back in the ’60s.

Bernie is a miner. A very good and successful one, but as with any mining operation his actions have left many scars on the landscape and a lot of disgruntled members of the public behind.

I saw the ‘advertising’ in Hungary again: ‘Bernie says, Think before you drive’. I know it’s something to do with road safety, but why do they put Bernie’s name up there? Are the common folks to understand who Bernie is and care about what he says?

And besides, can we chance the line into ‘Say Bernie, think before you do business’?

Joe, in your estimation are the team owners ready to abandon the I’m-in-it-for-what-I-can-take-to-the-bank-this-afternoon used car dealer mentality once and for all in favour of a new era of proper corporate governance? Do you think they understand how much is falling through the cracks now and how much they could benefit from becoming as professional on the corporate side as they are on track?

Do tell, who exactly is going to pay for this ‘corporate structure’ you envision? CVC is just going to throw the keys into the pot & move on? Assuming the ‘corporate structure’ is simply another financial investor, how are they going to service the debt?

Ed Gorman aptly described Formula1 as a business masquerading as a sport. The opportunity (if it ever really existed) to reshape the structure was when Ecclestone sold to CVC et al. The price/valuation then was digestible by the players (teams, OEMs etc) but that ship has sailed.

Regarding a proposed settlement the prison’ s are full of people who plead down to a lesser criminal charge rather than risk longer sentences. A white collar crime settled by fine rather than prison is also a viable alternative. BUT it would require an acknowledgement of guilt.

Maybe Bernie’ s ultimate strategy is avoiding prison time and acceptance of the fact that his stranglehold domination of F1 is over.

The king is dead, long live the new king, whoever winds up with the crown.

“If other sports can make corporate management work, there is no reason why F1 cannot. It merely requires some owners who see the value in not always going for the fast buck, people who want profits but are willing to invest to build a stronger business. It needs competitors who are reasonable and fair and a management that is enlightened and open to new ideas.” Reasonable competitors–I can see Williams,Sauber, Force India, and Marussia being reasonable. Enlightened management–I’m calling that “Pie in the Sky”.

Allegedly pay a EUR 33 million to grease the sale of F1 to right people. Settle for EUR 25 million. Feels like a top footballer offering to pay a a nominal fine to make a speeding fine go away. Surely it would take more than EUR 33 million to settle this case with a German court. Any punishment/settlement must be commensurate with the alleged crime committed. If the Germans want to maintain any degree of credibility they need to see this through to the end no matter what the outcome…isn’t that how the justice system is supposed to work??

Joe I think you’re setting yourself up for disappointment thinking that incorporating F1 as a business will make it any more transparent or result in less questionable behaviour by whomever the principals end up being.

Bernie is no better or worse than many senior executives of any number of major publicly listed companies.

My view is that the The Bolt will wriggle out of the German Court, give CVC the elbow, and buy up as much of F1 as he can, at a knockdown price. As he will then control things himself, without bankers, investment people etc, there will be no one to criticise him or his recent court appearances. I know everyone has a view on him, and a lot think he will be blown out of F1 with a Guilty sentence, but I just don’t buy it. The guy regularly outwits team owners, bankers, tv companies, huge corporations and even Governments. Anyone who can do that sort of thing continuously, and get away with it, whilst becoming enormously rich themselves, is more than capable of outwitting a Court, imho! And he’s now best mates with Putin, who no doubt, can show Bernard some entirely new tricks for obfuscation of people who should know much better!!

If Bernie does get the “boot” by CVC, who do you thing is best suited to replace him? Since you are (in my opinion) the most straight forward and informed journalist in F1, it would be great to hear your opinion.

“That’s not to say that Ecclestone is admitting guilt here, he just wants the trial to be over. He does not want a guilty verdict because he knows that this would mean that his F1 toys will be taken away from him. The only way he can keep the train set is to be declared “not guilty”,”

You’re mistaken here, Joe, because “guilty” and “not guilty” are not the only two possible outcomes of a criminal trial.

And a conditional dismissal apparently seems fine for Mr Ecclestone, because it avoids a guilty verdict and all the automatic repercussions that would lead to.

I feel bad for Mr E. A lot of people criticize him (unjustly I believe) for all sort of things but there’s no denying that he is a brilliant negotiator and the sport I love would not be what it is today without him. I’d put him up there with a Steve Jobs type character, often misunderstood but real heart for what they do.

Though there’s some things in the old days of F1 that look like a lot of fun there’s no denying he’s made it a safer sport and also opened it up to a worldwide audience. Although he seems to be getting a bit greedy with pay-TV recently hopefully he (or someone) opens there eyes to how much access and money is available with proper online viewing soon.

And so if his legacy becomes this bribery thing it’d be a very sad end in my opinion.

Yes. BE is not always the bad guy. However when you at the overall picture, I doubt he will fare well with historians. Sad in some ways because there are not many people who create an x billion Pound industry.

And, before this is considered too strange, contemplate the abuses of economic power upon the defenseless, in retail banking practice, taken to its heights as retail deposits underwrote reckless proprietary trading. The not atypical response has been reparation of sorts, but to a government treasury, not even refunds for those abused.

I think I shall have soon a final showdown over mismanagement of the building where I live. But the scene, thirteen years ago, yes, it is that epic, set in a local county court, when we were sued by a manager using a delisted, defunct, struck off for never filing any documents, brass plate, company, wholly criminally by any code, was that of a circuit judge dismissing us with “you have to pay someone sometime”. I asked if the judge would expect me to hand her cash if she came collecting in person for our electric bill, without showing any connection. Got fined for contempt. Saga, because of the intricacy of a fraud that appears very common. Channel Four were pressured into dropping from their 4oD online channel, replays of a documentary length investigation into a company intimate with the incumbents I am dealing with.

Fans are much more nebulous than mere high street bank customers, let alone leaseholders of property, paying for arbitrarily determined services which by lease they indemnify. Is there a fair way, to conclude this distracting turmoil?

But I digressed to the wider concern, as to what may have been lost. This is, in reality, a question only of whether Gribkovsky demanded a bribe. He’s in jail, and I personally am unsure he should be. A technical admission by Ecclestone, and a token arbitrary payment in reparation, seal the prosecutor’s dilemma. The dilemma is: if it is unlawful to receive a bribe, and unlawful to pay a bribe, there ought to be equal success in prosecution. Personally, I think who pays the bribe, commits the act of bribery. Gribkovsky was not convicted of blackmail. If there is concession in a settlement, I half expect there will be a component exonerating Gribkovsky, to lessen the chances of a retrial.

Gribkovsky always stated that he was sure that when Bernie said, ‘I will take care of you’ that this was in regards to a job with F1 Administration. Bernie was forced to testify (under protection from prosecution for his statements) against Gribkovsky that the man never actually asked for a dollar amount. I think Bernie coined it a soft shake down or words to that affect. So here we have Bernie deciding how he was going to reward him and this turns out to be cash. Gribkovsky could have turned this down and said NO, I want a job instead which wouldn’t be bribe per say. The fact that Gribkovsky under valued the sale price for his firm isn’t a crime as long as it can’t be proven he did it for his own purposes and was ill informed of F1’s worth. When Gribkovsky took the cash in return for undervaluing the shares is the point where he entered the criminal process. I have no sympathy for him. Bribery under Bavarian Law isn’t has harsh as the US. Up until a dozen or so years ago businesses could actually declare bribes as a tax deduction ruling it a cost of business. It wasn’t until they had to harmonize their laws with EU laws that this changed. The judge in Bernie’s case actually has the power to suspend the trial with the consent of the prosecution if an offer to reimburse either the Treasury, the ‘victim’, a charity or combination of the three is agreed upon. This has been done in other cases (lower profile) in Bavaria and no conviction was registered. Bare in mind that this is the 2nd offer from Bernie to settle financially – the first having been reported as rejected by the prosecution early this year. ($ too low?) Bernie’s offer runs out on August 8th. CVC is gambling that this occurs so that they can unload their shares and get out of F1 at a share price that will be higher then if Bernie was convicted. I predict that the Bavarian Government will take the money and run – distasteful as that is. Hopefully the door hits Bernie and CVC on their way out no matter what happens in this trial…

In all honesty Joe … what with one debacle after another , multiple excuses etc when it’s come to bringing criminal charges against the bankers and financial institutions here in the US after the Housing Bubble meltdown .. Bernie getting off with a mere financial settlement is sounding a little too ‘ normal ‘ for my tastes . But thats the world we live in at present … with all signs being it ain’t a gonna change anytime soon . In fact if anything … all signs point to it getting a whole lot worse .. worldwide

I think there is a big difference between the mismanagement of funds by a bank and one individual. Banks are an integral aspect of our economy. Any instability in the banking sector results in a run as we saw with Northern Rock. No government wants that sort of instability. Hence the bankers get a free pass.
The individual who defrauds an institution is another matter. Bernie Maidoff was sentenced to 170 years in a supermax prison for his Ponzi scheme.

In the court of public opinion, a $33M settlement is as damning as a guilty verdict. How he could keep on “handshaking” commercial deals after this is beyond me. Frankly, I think it is a very ill advised (or desperate) strategy, if this comes from him or his defense team!

I am not surprised by this idea. Let’s face it, Bernie is old. He simply doesn’t want to waste any more of his precious time with this and is prepared to pay a price to get on with things that are more interesting.

For a high profile trial, this has to be most minimally reported “event”. Not one single aspect of it does not reverberate at multiple levels, in business, in society regarding economic collapses, at a human level… I might be the first to say this in so many words, but was a old man taken advantage of? We don’t give Bernie much benefit of the doubt, let’s face it. His pathetic admission may be just that, a moment of frailty. Honesty is often that dull.

Maybe that answers the question as to whether a innocent man would pay to exit a protracted legal battle, even with a conviction? It depends much on the wording of the ruling, I suppose. Bernie doesn’t seem able to win, really. Not in any court of public opinion. That’s a sad way to go, and reflects badly on all who are touched by this. The fish may rot from the head, but teams have gone along with the Bernie plans, almost without exception, and with only scant notable objection. Bernie’s season start comments over engine noise struck me as petulance, a up yours, even. Frustration.

I find the clamoring, for Bernie to fall on his sword, objectionable, for the very reason of the creeping ambiguity of the sport, over many years. It is a kind of Christ effect. We want someone to suffer for our sins, and lack of vigilance and morals. (the contract of absolution being the most powerful I know to be invented)

You might also argue, that whilst the King is so weakened, why is all so quiet? Where is the contender? Is there no one who is fit? No one who could not be dislodged from any putative pedestal by a casual wave of the old maestro’s hand, in revelatory comment? If there were such a vacuum, in business or politics, one might expect a move to have been made, by now. Is it only collective embarrassment, that holds tongues and stays actions? Is it just bad luck, for appearance’s sake, that a Munich court is deciding on what may tarnish a sporting triumph 120 miles down the autobahn? Are teams now more concerned what they cannot know, about a new “owner”?

I’m throwing these thoughts out, simply because they are almost imponderables, not because I believe in any conspiracy theory. But I do believe self censorship is a strong motivator. A judge will be aware of the implications of their decisions. This ought to be a very dry, technical trial, on facts. There seems to be no smoking gun, nothing that makes anything open and shut. I mean, the issues is as to conspiracy to defraud more widely, to manipulate sale prices, not bribery. Justice does have to encompass common welfare, because a criminal act is defined by what will hurt the populous at large if unpunished. Therein (above I wrote therein instead of theoretically, sorry, but I think the meaning held) lies those rocky shores of theoretical or philosophical debate.

Temptation makes me think the judge allowed this to be drawn out, to aver the day he has to make a decision, and unravel the mess. Does any result, either way, get to the core of anything any of us are interested in? Or do we want a catalyst for change, or a scapegoat?

We often look at what Bernie says, and think he is, at best, being flippant. But look into all the angles of this, and ask, if it were you, would you not get fed up with all the spurious and tenuous angles which get thrown around, and be able to not call it a load of cobblers, just the once?

Clarity is often best provided by those who have already made a decision. I’d be reconciled with ambiguity, if there is no real lens to make clear the out of focus goings on far beyond the garage doors. Ambiguity may in fact be a fair verdict, if it is illuminating, without bias.

Such a deal would be just what the German prosecution needed. If you read the comments below some omline reports you may get a premonition of the shitstorm which is consolidating….if someone considers Ecclestone´s image in the public such a deal would be cherry-on-top for german people who think famous rich people can arrange things in court anytime. It could be a worst case scenario for the credibilty of justice.

And don´t forget prosecution is bound to instruction of politics. Nuerburgring or Hockenheim? :-)))

And WHY such a process should be an “extremely burdensome process” for a 84-year old who constantly travels around the world and (in contrary to most of his contemporaries!) still is in employment in a very demanding business, someone better should explain to us…..

The judge can claim that it was in public interest to agree a settlement rather than a lengthy and costly trial – I am sure Joe is right that there is no appetite to send someone of 84 to jail. The prosecution would have the implied outcome of the defendent settling it suggests, so they can claim victory.

BE can also claim that he paid a settlement to avoid a long and expensive trial and he is still not guilty of anything.

It is not a bribe unless legally declared as such. However the man in the street may not follow the logic of the legal profession, and will have his own view on the morality of such a payment, if indeed it ever happens.

White collar crime is indeed different, that however should be no barrier to jail time. It is insidious. morally defunct, dangerous and ultimately a crime against fair play in decent society. Something that civilisation is based upon. The idea that white collar criminals should automatically get an easier ride than blue collar is divisive and ultimately flawed. A street robbery done out of compulsion due to hunger or addiction or a corporate robbery (which is what the alleged bribe amounts to) done for greed. In my view to be treated the same.

You can certainly believe that Bernie will always do his best – for Bernie. What I think you and a lot of us believe also is that that isn’t always the best for the sport, both F1 and wider motor racing.

If what the Beeb is saying is true he is paying a £60m settlement for paying a £29m bribe. £89m in total but I bet it’s still less the tax he allegedly may have had to pay if he hadn’t allegedly paid the bribe.

So if he pays the £60 what is CVCs stance? Has he admitted guilt and paid a fine, or simply paid another b̶r̶i̶b̶e̶ settlement to avoid the case?

Sudden thought. I wonder if the judge was keen to agree to this because if they failed to prove that Ecclestone did it, and thus ended up with a formal Not Guilty verdict, they’d perhaps have had to have overturned Gribkowsky’s conviction? That would have been highly embarrassing all round for the Bavarians, even more so than this outcome is…

Meanwhile, I suppose this means that Youtube videos will continue to be taken down, wrecking the sport’s popularity with the young (sigh)…